Former Halo Creative Director Maps Out Three Possible Futures Under Activision

Halo's next era is one of the most consequential questions facing Xbox, and former franchise creative director Frank O'Connor has offered a clear framework for how the series might proceed under Activision. O'Connor, who spent close to two decades helping shape Halo across Bungie and 343 Industries--later renamed Halo Studios--believes there are three broad routes available. Each could work, he argues. None comes with an easy guarantee.

The discussion follows Halo's move into Activision, the company best known within Xbox for operating Call of Duty at enormous scale. The change has prompted understandable debate about what the new stewardship could mean for a property with a history unlike almost any other console shooter: a series built around a distinct campaign identity, highly improvisational multiplayer sandbox play, a long-running science-fiction setting, and a community that often has strong ideas about what Halo should and should not be.

O'Connor's view is notable because of his unusually broad connection to that history. He joined Bungie while Halo 2 was in development after working at Official Xbox Magazine, remained associated with the franchise through its transition to 343 Industries, and left the studio in 2023. His response does not present a prediction of Activision's plans. Instead, it lays out strategic possibilities and the difficult trade-offs that would come with each one.

Path one: build a modern classic Halo

The first option is the most familiar on paper: make a Halo game centered on the series' established movement, combat sandbox, and shooter fundamentals. That does not necessarily mean recreating an older title beat for beat. O'Connor's point is that a new game could be deliberately designed around the audience that still wants a recognizably classic Halo experience, while remaining accessible enough to grow beyond that core.

For useful background on this topic, read Grand Theft Auto 6 Promises Hurricanes, Dynamic Weather and More Than 170 Animal Species.

This approach acknowledges one of Halo's foundational strengths. Its multiplayer has traditionally been defined by interactions between weapons, vehicles, equipment, map geometry, and player decision-making. A match can shift suddenly because someone grabs a power weapon, steals a Warthog, lands a grenade at the right moment, or turns an opponent's tool against them. That dynamic is not merely a collection of features; it is the sandbox identity O'Connor repeatedly emphasizes should not be discarded.

There is also a practical multiplayer argument for this route. Larger player populations improve matchmaking, create healthier social spaces, support a wider selection of playlists, and make it easier for friends to find games together. Halo multiplayer benefits from numbers in a direct way, even before considering the commercial side of sustaining a major online game.

The challenge is that "classic" can become a limiting word if it is treated as a museum piece. A modern Halo following this route would need to identify which fundamentals are truly essential and which elements can change. It would have to satisfy longtime players without assuming that nostalgia alone can attract a wider market. The design task is not simply to look backward, but to make Halo's specific kind of arena action feel compelling beside today's many competitive shooters.

Path two: reinvent the universe

O'Connor's second path is much more radical. Rather than trying to refine the familiar first-person formula, Activision could create something new that reinvents Halo's game design and perhaps its place within the broader universe. He floated the idea that it could remain an unconventional take on a first-person shooter or become something closer to an action RPG, provided it is fundamentally different and genuinely excellent.

That option carries substantial risk, but it also recognizes the flexibility of Halo as a setting. The universe has room for military science fiction, alien civilizations, ancient technology, large-scale warfare, exploration, political conflict, and stories beyond the perspective of a single Spartan. A bold new format could use that material in ways the mainline games have not fully explored.

For a reinvention to succeed, however, it could not rely only on the Halo name. O'Connor's outline suggests that story strength and intelligent use of the intellectual property would be central. Existing fans might initially arrive out of loyalty or curiosity, but the game would need its own identity to retain them and earn new players. A project that changes genre without delivering a persuasive reason for the change would risk pleasing neither the traditional audience nor those unfamiliar with Halo.

This is the route that could produce the biggest surprise. It is also the route most likely to generate the sharpest disagreements among fans. Halo's history has shown that changes to movement, progression, campaign structure, visual direction, and multiplayer philosophy can inspire intense debate. A full reinvention would need a remarkably confident creative vision, not change for its own sake.

Path three: bring Halo into Activision's operating model

The third possibility is to adapt Halo's intellectual property and sandbox to the systems Activision knows how to run: large recurring releases or major semi-annual events, persistent content, established player-progression structures, and business models designed for a massive franchise audience. In simple terms, this would be the path closest to Activision's comfort zone.

There are obvious advantages to that experience. Activision has extensive knowledge of supporting high-profile shooter ecosystems over long periods, coordinating large development operations, and maintaining a regular flow of content. With Halo now under the same corporate umbrella, the prospect of applying that operational discipline is a major part of the conversation.

But O'Connor's comments make clear that copying a template would not be enough. Any such strategy would still need to preserve Halo's sandbox. The franchise cannot become a different shooter with familiar armor and names pasted on top. If Activision's strengths are used to support consistent content and a strong service structure, the core play experience still has to feel like Halo.

O'Connor also offered several warnings for this route. Halo should not be tied to hardware or service launch cycles, he said, and it should not be forced into a form--or onto an aging platform--that does not suit the game. Those cautions point toward a broader lesson from the series' past: a project's schedule and technical constraints should serve the game's design, rather than dictate it.

Talent remains central to every option

One of O'Connor's most direct recommendations concerns people rather than design documents. He urged Activision to hire talent from Bungie, Halo Studios, and other developers who have been laid off despite having ideas and experience that were never fully realized. That is a significant point in an industry where experienced teams can be broken apart while franchises continue to seek the knowledge those teams accumulated.

A Halo revival, reinvention, or service-driven expansion would require more than a corporate structure and a familiar brand. It would need people who understand why the series' combat encounters work, how its weapons and vehicles relate to one another, how its fiction has evolved, and where previous projects may have struggled. It would also need fresh perspectives capable of identifying what Halo can become next.

The recent history around Halo makes that need especially visible. In 2024, 343 Industries underwent a rebrand to Halo Studios, leadership changes, and a move toward Unreal Engine as its game technology foundation. Earlier in 2026, Halo Studios released Halo: Campaign Evolved, a remake of the original game that launched without multiplayer. At the same time, the studio's next mainline Halo project was reportedly still years away before Xbox CEO Asha Sharma and Xbox COO Matt Booty made the decision to move Halo to Activision.

A choice that defines more than one game

It is possible that Halo's future will not fit neatly into only one of O'Connor's categories. Activision could make a game with classic sandbox priorities while adopting a more robust long-term content operation. It could also pursue a new kind of Halo project alongside a more traditional competitive release. Still, the three paths capture the central tension: preserve the formula, transform it, or scale it through a proven franchise machine.

What should not be mistaken for a solution is the ownership change by itself. Activision brings resources and expertise, but Halo's next success will depend on creative clarity, technical execution, player trust, and a willingness to understand the elements that made the series distinctive in the first place. The safest-looking choice may not automatically be the strongest, and the boldest choice will need more than ambition.

For Xbox, the stakes extend beyond one sequel. Halo was once the defining face of the platform, and it remains one of gaming's most recognizable science-fiction worlds. Whether Activision chooses a refined classic, a daring reinvention, or a content-driven model built around its existing strengths, the eventual result will help determine what Halo means in its next chapter.